Name and “place specificity” of the natural places they visit mostly
The respondents then answered the following open-ended question: “To which natural place do you mostly go?” Respondents were free to give several natural places.
Based on respondents’ free answers, we computed a synthetic index of so-called “place specificity”, in 3 levels: 0 for general, unspecified places (e.g. “forest”, “countryside”, “parks”), 1 for named or specific places (e.g. “Paris Zoo”, “Vincennes park”, “Britany”), 2 for owned places (“my garden”, “my place”, “my parents’ garden”). We assigned one value (from 0 to 2) to each cited place. Several values of this index could be present for a single respondent, depending on the number of cited natural places.
Determinants of the frequency of visit to natural places
We used a linear regression to explore determinants of the frequency of visit of natural places, with the frequency of visit of natural places (VIS) as the response variable, and rural setting during childhood (RUR), connectedness with nature (INS), age (AGE), gender (SEX) and group (GPE) as the independent variables. The group variable was only included in the model to take into account differences between groups (see results). We also considered interactions between RUR, INS, AGE and SEX. We then applied a stepwise model selection based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) scores to select the best model. Finally, we conducted an type III-anova on the best model we selected (Fox and Weisberg 2016).
Determinants of visits of the most cited natural places
We used logistic regressions to explore whether visiting the most cited natural places could be predicted by connectedness with nature (INS), rural setting during childhood (RUR), age (AGE), gender of respondents (SEX) and surveyed group (GPE). We also added the frequency of visits to natural places during adulthood (VIS) among explanatory variables, because we could not exclude the possibility that the identity of the most visited places depend on the frequency individuals with which generally visit natural areas. Interactions between INS, RUR, AGE and SEX were also considered.
We entered the cited natural place (binary data set, showing whether each respondent named this specific place or not) as the response variable, and INS, RUR, VIS, SEX, AGE and GPE as independent variables. We applied this procedure for the two most quoted natural places in the whole data set, i.e. forest and park (see results). We then applied a stepwise model selection based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) scores to select the best model for each natural place (i.e. forest and park). Finally, we conducted a type III anova on the best model we selected (Fox and Weisberg 2016).
Determinants of place specificity
We modeled determinants of place specificity using ordinal regression model (Haubo 2015) with place specificity (PSP) as the response variable and rural setting during childhood (RUR), age (AGE), gender (SEX), connectedness with nature (INS), frequency of visits of natural places during adulthood (VIS) and surveyed group (GPE) as independent variables. We also considered interactions between RUR, AGE, SEX, INS and VIS. Because participants were allowed to give several responses, we built for this analysis a separate dataset containing as much replications of each individual’s information as the number of natural places he/she mentioned. In other words, if an individual mentioned two natural places, this individual appeared twice in the data set. We thus applied a random effect to the participant variable, to control for multiple responses of natural places per person.
Distribution of the three proxies of experience of nature among 4639 French adults
Frequency of visit to natural places significantly differed between the surveyed groups (χ=755.41, df=16, p < 2.2e-16). All surveyed groups were consistent in the score 0 (“never”, 0 to 4% of respondents in each survey), as well as in the score 3 (“once a week”, 32 to 44% of respondents). However, there was a large variation between surveyed groups for other frequencies (i.e. 1 – “once a year”, 2 – “once a month”, and 4 – “every day”; proportion of respondents varied from 11 to 34%).
Table of contents :
1. The biodiversity crisis
a. Dramatic biodiversity decline
b. The emerging field of conservation psychology
2. Human-nature relationships
a. Various concepts to define human-nature relationships
b. The so-called “extinction of [nature] experience”
c. What kind of nature are we talking about?
3. Zoos as places for reconnecting people with nature?
a. Historic overview of zoos and their roles
b. The multiple components of the zoo visit
Summary and aims of the thesis
What kind of landscape management can counteract the extinction of experience?
1. French context of natural areas
2. Study sites
b. Urban parks
Chapter 1: What is a zoo visit experience? A preliminary study
Material and methods
Results and Discussion
Chapter 2: How do people perceive nature at the zoo?
What does “nature” mean at the zoo?
An anthropological exploration of soundscape in zoos: exoticism as a mediator of everyday experiences of nature
Chapter 3: Does a zoo visit help reconnecting people with nature?
Manuscript 4. Can zoo visit link nature connectedness to biodiversity concern? Comparative analysis between zoos and parks in Paris, France
Chapter 4: Does a zoo visit help reconnecting people with conservation issues?
Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status
General discussion, limitations and perspectives